Regulating device for electric circuits.



No. 762,114. PATENTED JUNE 7, 1904.

M. H. BAKER.

REGULATING DEVICE FOR ELECTRIC CIRCUITS.

APPLICATION FILED JUNE 25, 1902. N0 MODEL. 2 SHEETS-SHEET l.

yum wows 4 W H 73%. Snow [3oz I 5& whom M243 ms NORRIS PETERS co, PHOTO-THO, WASHINGTON. 0.1:v

No. 762,114. PATENTED JUNE 7, 1904.

M. H. BAKER. REGULATING DEVICE FOR ELECTRIC CIRCUITS.

APPLIOATION FILED JUNE 25, 1902.

N0 MODEL. 2 SHEETS-SHEET 2.

. 13 qwHMQ/ww %M 4? M W y m: Noqms PETERS co Pnoroumm WASHWGYGH, n r,

UNITED STATES MALCOLM H. BAKER, OF EAST LIBERTY, PENNSYLVANIA, ASSIGNOR TO I Patented June *7, 1904.

PATENT OEErcE.

IVESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPO- RATION OF PENNSYLVANIA.

REGULATING DEVICE FOFI ELECTRIC CIRCUITS.

SPECIFICATION forming part of Letters Patent N 0. 762,114, dated June 7, 1904. Application filed June 25, 1902. Serial No. 113,070. (No model.)

To all whom it may concern.-

Be it known that I. MALCOLM H. BAKER, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of East Liberty, in the county of Allegheny and State of Pennsylvania, have invented certain new and useful Improvements in Regulating Devices for Electric Circuits, of which the following is a specification.

In United States Letters Patent issued to me on the 8th day of October, 1901, Nos. 684,165 and 684:,340, I have shown and described a method of and apparatus for regulating electric circuits containing translating devices, as arc-lamps, in series.

The apparatus consists, in general, of a reactance device in series with the translating devices, the whole embodying the feature of opposing to the magnetic pull of the reactancecoil a mechanical force and so correlating the mechanical force and the magnetic pull that the choking efiect of the coil will vary automatically to compensate for changes in the resistance of the circuit.

In the patents mentioned I show'and describe an apparatus in which I make use of a compensating lever carrying a weight, and I attach to the end of the lever remote from the weight either the laminated core or the coil, as the case may be, of a reactance device, and I pivot the lever at such a point and in such a way as to form a critical angle between the outer part of the lever and the inner part that is to say, the two parts of the lever on opposite sides of the pivot.

In both of the patents named I illustrate and describe a method of determining the critical angle for the lever of the compensating device, and this being now a matter of common knowledge I have not thought it necessary to repeat the description or illustration in this application.

On the same date with the patents above mentioned there was issued to me a patent,

. form weights linked together.

The apparatus described in all'of the patents named gives approximately perfect regulation within a certain effective range of operation; but when the coil and the core of the reactance device are brought to or nearly to a position where any further movement would cause the complete separation of the core and the coil the normal counteracting effect of the weight in the first-described form of apparatus, even as modified by its shortened leverage after a further movement, might be excessive in view of the rapid weakening of the field beyond this point. Likewise in the case of the divided counterweight the action might cease to be satisfactory at the same point in the operation of the device, owing to the changing conditions intervening at that point in the operation.

The means by which I compensate for the more rapid changes in magnetic effect when the coil and core are about to separate consist,in the present instance,of devices whereby the opposing force is also more rapidly weakened at the proper point in the operation of the device.

In the first form of apparatus instead of giving to the counterbalance a uniform and unchanging value I cause portions thereof to be successively withdrawn from elfeetive action when the normal range of action of the reactance device is exceeded. In the same manner in the second type of device 1 construct, as before, the divided counterweight with uniform parts up to a certain point, beyond which the parts of the counterweight successively increase in value, from which it results that when the device has reached a certain point in its operation a further movement will cause a proportionately greater weight to be put out of action, as will be readily understood.

Broadly, therefore, the object of the present invention is to increase the range of action of the devices shown and described in my beforementioned patents. In many instances the present invention may not be called into action, the devices referred to in my previous patents being adapted to suffice for many sets of conditions; but when it is desired to make my reactance device operate through a very wide range this invention will be found often advantageous. The same idea may be applied to other forms of apparatus besides those herein illustrated and described, such as the forms appearing in various other patents issued to me on October .8, 1901. v

y I have illustrated my invention in the accompanying drawings, in which- Figure 1 is a side elevation of one form of my improved reactance device detached from connection with any electric circuit, the parts being shown in the position which they occupy when the circuit in which the reactance device is included has a minimum load. Fig. 2 is a side elevation of the same apparatus, showing its position near maximum load. Fig. 3 illustrates in side elevation the second form of apparatus connected with an electric circuit and occupying the position of minimum load, and Fig. 4 shows the same apparatus as it appears when the circuit is near its maximum load.

Referring first to figures 3 and 4:, 1 is a suitable source of alternating current, and 2 and 3 are mains leading therefrom. The lamps are shown at i 4 and the regulating or reactance coil appears at 5. This coil is represented as surrounding one leg of a laminated-iron core 6 of double-horseshoe shape, and its top is pivoted to the end of a lever 7, the remote end of which has a head 8 formed on a curve and having attached near its upper end a chain 9, carrying a divided counterweight 10. The different parts of the divided counterweight are linked together, as shown, and the lower parts are of equal size and weight, while the three uppermost parts are increasingly larger and heavier. The lever 7 is pivoted at 11 to an upright or standard 12, and the whole is mounted on a suitable base 13. A stop or cushion 1 L on the base 13 is adapted to receive the weight as the segmental end of the lever 7 descends.

The position illustrated in Fig. 4 is that which the device occupies when the circuit is near its maximum load. Should one or more lamps now be cut out of the circuit and the resistance of the main circuit be thereby decreased, the coil of the reactance device will exercise a stronger pull upon the core, and these two parts will approach each other, at the same time lifting one or more of the elements of the weight to a higher position. Thus while the pull of the magnet has been increasing itwill be noted that the effectiveness of the weight has also been increasing by virtue of the fact that more and,more elements of the weight have been lifted free from their sup? port. Accordingly the effect of the weight increases as the pull of the core increases, and if the number and weight of the different elements of the counterbalance be carefully selected a substantial counterbalance can be maintained throughout the main portion of the excursion of the reactance coil or core, as

the case may be, and of the counterweight. Should, however, one or more lamps be cut into the circuit when the reactance device is in the position illustrated in Fig. 3, the resistance of the circuit will be thereby increased and the coil will exercise less attraction on its core, thus releasing the lever to a certain extent and allowing one or more elements of the divided counterweight to drop out of active operation. It is in this way that the apparatus passes from the position illustrated in Fig. 3 to that shown in Fig. 4:.

Assuming that one or more lamps are cut into the circuit after the position shown in Fig. 4: has been reached, it will be seen that the weight which is next thrown out of active operation is larger and heavier than the preceding weights, for which reason the opposition of the counterweight will be decreased in a higher degree than usual. This takes place at a time when or a point where the coil and its core are about to separate, so that the variation in inductive effect is greater than it has been throughout the other positions of the apparatus. Accordingly the relieving of the greater weight may be made to correspond accurately to the different inductive effect already described, and so on through the still further excursion of the lever- Referring to Figs. 1 and 2, the counterweight 10' has attached to it underneath auxiliary weights 50 and 51, the purpose of which will be explained hereinafter. The lever 7 is here pivoted to a standard 12 upon a suitable base 13.

It will be seen that the position of the coil 5 at full load, as illustrated in Fig. 2, is one in which the magnetic pull with relation to the core is comparatively slight. In this position the upper part of the lever 7 is approximately horizontal, so as to give to the downward pull of the coil under magnetic influences its greatest possible effect. In this position of the parts the counterbalance 10 and the lower part of the lever 7 are so placed that the effect of the counterbalance is at its minimum. On the other hand, when the circuit is at its minimum load, or approximately so, as shown in Fig. 1,'the mechanical pull of the weight is at its maximum, or nearly so, within the limits of its movement in an upward direction, while the magnetic pull as between the core and the coil is also at its maximum.

The weight of the counterbalance 10 having been properly selected, (in combination in the present instance with the weight of the auxiliary counterbalances 50 and 51,) the adaptiabilty of the described apparatus to the work of regulating the circuit depends upon the critical angle between the two parts of thelever 7 on opposite sides of its pivot. When the proper angle is chosen, the increased effectiveness of the weight as the coil travels downward in response to variations of the current caused by decreased resistance in the circuit to which the apparatus is applied will bear a direct ratio to the increased choking effect in the coil caused by the approach of the coil and the core relatively to each other. In this way a practically constant current will be maintained in the circuit at all times.

It is immaterial whether the weights 1O 10' or any other counterweight or force is connected to the coil or to the core, the relative movements of these two parts being the feature upon which the choking effect depends.

In Figs. 1 and 2 I show a dash-pot 22, pivoted at 23, this dash-pot consisting of a cylinder in which a piston 24 is placed. The piston 24 is connected with a piston-rod 25, which is pivoted to the lever 7'.

The Weights 50 and 51 are suspended from the weight 10 by anysuitable means. When the coil and the core of the reactance device become so far separated or approach separation to such an extent that no further relative movement will be carried on through a rapidly-weakening magnetic field, the weight 51 comes to rest upon the base 13 or upon a stand 26, mounted on said base, and is thus thrown out of effective action, thereby lessening the effective weight of the counterbalance to that extent. A still further movement in the same direction throws the weight 50 out of action.

Instead of two auxiliary weights I may employ any desired number and may subdivide them into so many parts as to appreciably increase the effective range of operation of my reactance device.

It will be understood that the auxiliary weight 51 is thrownout of action at the moment when the decrease in the magnetic pull of the reactance-coil ceases to be accurately met by the decrease in the effectiveness of the entire weight traveling along the arc of the circle, and so on with successive weights.

I claim as my invention 1. A regulator for maintaining constant current in a series altcrnating-current electric circuit, wherein are combined a regulating reactance device having a moving part, a device producing a counter force opposing the movement of the said part, and acting uniformly through a given range to bring the said moving part to equilibrium at such a point as to maintain constant current in the circuit, and means for causing the said counter-force-producing device to act with increasing variations when the limit of uniform forth.

2. A regulator for maintaining constant current in a series alternating-current electric circuit, wherein are combined a regulating reactance device having a moving part, a device producing a counter force opposing the movement of the said part and connected therewith by a lever having a critical angle, and means for throwing a portion of said counterforce-producing device out of action when the limit of adequate regulation due to the critical angle of the lever has been reached, substantially as set forth.

Signed at New York, in the county of New York and State of New York, this 9th day of June, A. D. 1902.

MALCOLM H. BAKER.

Witnesses:

iVM. H. GAPEL, GEORGE H. S'rooKBRIDoIJ. 

